Donald or Hillary — Both Promise to Be the Last Trump for the Republic

Under the headline Schlafly Shrugs Off Trump and Abortion Issue is a story at onenewsnow.com about two reputedly principled moral conservatives. They helped Trump gain credibility with conservatives despite his poor record on issues of God-endowed unalienable right, like abortion and the preservation of the natural family. The story reports that they are now “sticking with Donald Trump no matter what.”

In particular, they are admitting that, As Dr. Robert Jeffress is quoted to say “I…don’t believe that those are going to be the most important issues at the forefront of his election.” Phyllis Schlafly apparently concurs saying “He’ll make some modification of the things he’s said…but I don’t think it’s going to be serious.”

Despite that disclaimer, she goes on to assert that “…on the abortion issue, the presidential candidate doesn’t have anything to do with the platform. So forget that…Then the other question about transgender, the problem is nobody knows what to do about that. I don’t know what to do about it.” The story has Jeffers saying that “With regard to abortion…he doesn’t expect Trump to “change his core beliefs’ on the topic.”

In an essay I will be posting this week on my blog, I contend that the best that can be said about Donald Trump is that he has no core beliefs on issues respecting the principles of God-endowed right, even though they are the premises on which Constitutional self-government (of, by and for the people) in the United States was constructed. Up to the time he decided to get involved in Presidential politics in the GOP, the whole tenor of Mr. Trump’s life, and in particular his actions as a citizen, goes to prove that he strongly opposed the positions, on every such issue of Founding principle, that he now professes to support.

In that upcoming article I will discuss his supposed conversion to the pro-life cause in some detail. On issues like the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision re homosexuality, he has refused to take a principled position. Like many other politicos, he proclaims his support for the “traditional” family, but has no answer when asked bluntly what was “traditional” about his own multiple marriages. Recently, on the issue of suppressing decent respect for the natural distinction between males and females, he advised States to accept the new status quo imposed by some elements of the Federal Judiciary. Scorched by the charge that this conflicts with his purported support for “States’ Rights” on such issues, he simply reiterated that view more boisterously, without addressing the apparent contradiction.

This is a fatally inadequate response. Despite the misnomer commonly used to describe the powers the 10th Amendment reserves to “the States, respectively, or to the people,” State governments have no more authority to deny or disparage unalienable rights (inarguably retained by the people) than the U.S. Government. On the face of it, the Constitution’s 9th Amendment’s language prohibits this. Though no Constitutional logic supports them, the Federal Judiciary now relies implicitly on the assumption that, as governments and/or the people are forbidden to discriminate on account of race, color, creed or national origin, so they are forbidden to discriminate against the choices people make with respect to gender and sexual behavior.

But this assumed analogy defies reason and common sense. The physical characteristics, like skin color by which some people assume to identify different races are not a matter of choice. The fact that I am a natural born citizen of the United States (my national origin) was not a matter of my choice. The way in which I worship God may be a matter of choice, but in general the worship humans owe to their Creator, being crucial to the acceptance of His authority, is therefore crucial to the recognition of unalienable right. For in the absence of His authority no such rights can be said to exist.

The decisions by which the Federal or any other courts in the United States purport to forbid laws based on a decent respect for natural distinctions that reflect the will of the Creator are plainly unlawful, in respect of the authority of the “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”. Since the American people’s assertion of their right to Constitutional self-government has, since the beginning, depended on that authority, anything that discards it cuts away the ground for that assertion. Issues like abortion, homosexuality and efforts to suppress respect for the natural male/female distinction can thus be recognized as part of an attack aimed at eradicating the rational basis for Constitutional self-government of, by and for the American people.

This is why issues of natural principle, which involve respect for the authority of the Creator, God, are of paramount importance to people really committed to preserving America’s liberty. Phyllis Schlafly, Dr. Jeffress and others like them, lent credibility to Donald Trump in the early stages of his campaign. But now they are quietly admitting that he will not give these issues of paramount importance the priority required if we are to avoid the impending overthrow of our Constitutional self-government.

No doubt, Phyllis Schlafly will respond that the damage being inflicted by the non-enforcement of our immigration laws poses an immediate threat to our national security, including both our physical lives and the integrity of our body politic. I agree. And for years I have joined with and supported Americans who demand that our immigration laws be strictly enforced and our borders surveilled and defended, developing and deploying all the technological, police and military capacities needed to do so.

But for most of that time, Donald Trump has not only been on the other side, he has been benefiting substantially from immigration, including illegal immigrant workers, coming into the United States. During the primary cycle he has changed his mouth in order to benefit politically from the change. But nothing suggests that he will in fact stand by his newfound zeal for the defense of our sovereignty as a people. He has purposely staked out outrageous positions, so that when he is forced to back away from them the treacherous deals he makes will seem to be the result of reasonable accommodation.

On the excuse of giving priority to these issues, “conservatives” like Phyllis Schlafly and Dr. Jeffress have misled sincerely principled grassroots conservatives into accepting as their champion someone who is in no position to defend The Republic’s basis in principle. Practically everything about Donald Trump’s past suggests that, on the issues of Founding principle, he means to betray conservatives. Now even those who shilled for him, like Mrs. Schlafly, are admitting that he will give those issues no priority.

His derogatory statements about Mexican and other illegals; his proposed ban on all Muslim entry into the United States; his enthusiastic embrace of torture, including things worse than waterboarding, will be used to discredit all the positions he pretends to espouse. They will be blown up and blared into every ear. But when it comes to the issues of Founding principle, he will give no priority to defending against these caricatures. Of course the assault against him will also aim to discredit the people whom, thanks to Schlafly, et al., he can claim to represent. They will be caricatured and ridiculed along with him.

On the issues he pretends to care about, he will offer some defense against these attacks. But what of the issues to which he will give no priority, (according to those best positioned to know.) On those issues he will default to his opponent. On those issues he will temporize, retreat and offer nothing that even resembles the powerful, true vindication they deserve; the powerful true vindication they require if our liberty is to survive the elitist offensive against it.

The enemy is at the gates. But, with more fatal significance, under cover of the noise and din of that frontal assault, enemy sappers are completing the subversion of the citadel in which the moral goods most vital to our survival are preserved. When that citadel falls, our will to defend the outer walls will lie crushed beneath its ruins. In spirit and in truth, America’s constitutional, republican form of self-government will cease to exist. What follows will be the sad spectacle of our nation’s body politic in mortal decay. So in this respect, either Donald or Hillary promise to be the last trump for America’s Constitutional Republic.

Author

Once a high-level Reagan-era diplomat, Alan Keyes is a long-time leader in the conservative movement. He is well-known as a staunch pro-life champion and an eloquent advocate of the constitutional republic, including respect for the moral basis of liberty and self-government. He has worked to promote an approach to politics based on the initiative of citizens of goodwill consonant with the with the principles of God-endowed natural right.

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.